TC's JT Discussion Thread

[maxta]

The best in todays game....arguably with Smith & others including Brett Stewart.
Though its sad you don't agree, its refreshing the majority of NRL players rate him on top of the tree, they are also wrong in your eyes....shows being a technical judge is not shared by those involved in the game, the players.
As for a sweetheart deal or favouritism towards Thurston I believe that award is far more prevalent with Cam Smith & the Storm in general.
Personally not a massive Thurston fan but appreciate his respect to those around him from ball boys to supporters & think he is a superb player who is clearly the best 5/8 in the game...an immortal....very debatable as these honours Imo, are handed out too much in recent times since the initial 4 immortals.

 

[Deleted member 24974]

Every forward pass??
How about every try assist?
Every kick for field position?
Every pass creating opportunity?
Match winning field goal?
Match winning goal?
Inspiring his team?
Changing a game off pure instinct?
How about being 1 of todays best players....in fact...the best....
Sorry not a Manly player.....who cares....still the best.

How about every premiership as that's what really counts?
Orford 1 Thurson 1

 

[maxta]

How about every premiership as that's what really counts?
Orford 1 Thurson 1

Premiership winner is how you rate players???
So Vic Mauro is a far better player than Nathan Hindmarsh??
That's the best yet.
1 thing to have an opinion on what players are better than others & why, but to measure player status by winning a premiership is a joke, there are 16 other players that may have contributed a little also.....

 

[Rex]

The best in your opinion not the best.

The way Thurston for Qld legends is being talked up above Cam Smith and Lockyer is a joke for more modern examples---Langer also who had more dominance at Origin and NRL level. (even if i consider Langers passing game was very limited especially left to right, to be fair most player of that time were weak passing in that direction also)

Thurston is a likable media darling with a quirky laugh that has endeared him to the public more so than others along with his game day free handouts for good PR.

I also believe there are other reasons why Thurston is being promoted as one of the greatest that has brainwashed people to believe the hype

Good player, one of the better players but below many others, who choked way too many times at NRL finals time.

lol. Thought you'd had enough but you're back for more.

So you rated Andrew Johns at the very top. Fair enough, an immortal, named halfback in the team of the century. But how is Thurston rated by comparison? Could we ask Matty Johns or would that be biased? Here is what Matty Johns said about Thurston last July, before Thurston captained the Cowboys to the premiership :

By the end of his career he could very well surpass Johns in the ‘best ever’ pecking order and that’s not something anyone would say lightly. Thurston matches Johns as a competitor and is a more explosive runner of the ball, with the sleight of hand to match.

His 33 Origins as part of the best side ever put him in front of the eighth Immortal in the interstate arena and their Test careers are fairly comparable as well. There’s no question about JT’s place on this list, but many would say that in order to dethrone Johns as the best ever he needs to spearhead his NRL side to a premiership, which Johns did twice.
​

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...super-league-era/story-fn2mcuj6-1227444536585

 

[Technical Coach]

lol. Thought you'd had enough but you're back for more.

So you rated Andrew Johns at the very top. Fair enough, an immortal, named halfback in the team of the century. But how is Thurston rated by comparison? Could we ask Matty Johns or would that be biased? Here is what Matty Johns said about Thurston last July, before Thurston captained the Cowboys to the premiership :

By the end of his career he could very well surpass Johns in the ‘best ever’ pecking order and that’s not something anyone would say lightly. Thurston matches Johns as a competitor and is a more explosive runner of the ball, with the sleight of hand to match.

His 33 Origins as part of the best side ever put him in front of the eighth Immortal in the interstate arena and their Test careers are fairly comparable as well. There’s no question about JT’s place on this list, but many would say that in order to dethrone Johns as the best ever he needs to spearhead his NRL side to a premiership, which Johns did twice.
​

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...super-league-era/story-fn2mcuj6-1227444536585

Mate i've ended the the thread several times you are the one who keeps it going.

I have no issue replying to others within this thread but your replies are all about "but but but but" to generate another reply.

I've ignored this thread for days on several occasions and tried to put an end to it---you are the one who keeps begging for more attention and your IP address has been tracked alongside every reply i make at this site, creeeeeeeeepy don't you think lol.

What other players or commentators think of Thurston means zero to me (for the most part i don't even care what other commentators or players think of a certain players qualities unless they are talking about "respect and leadership" in the effort areas of the game)

I think a pretty good chunk of Qld's dominance was due to the classy players from the Storm. Melb's high performance levels in the same period combined with two great leaders in Lockyer and Cam Smith pretty much guaranteed success, when you combine this type of leadership with Qlds greater respect for Origin as a whole you have the makings of a great team.

People can talk about "salary cap breaches" all they want and using that as the "reasons why Melb were so far ahead" but you don't make 5 GF's and almost making the GF in several other years and not have "Great players who are above and beyond what Thurston is)

If these players did not exist Thurston would not be seen as a future Great/Immortal just an extremely competitive good player who has not changed the game all that much.(When you put the Origin success into perspective, Thurston seems to be generating more respect than he deserves from this dominance and it is clouding peoples judgements a little)

The link between the Storms 5 GF's and Qlds dominance holds far more weight than Thurston being a Great / Immortal and a big part of Qlds success.

 

[Rex]

Got it.

Stats are irrelevant.
Teammate and expert opinions are irrelevant.
Dally Ms, and awards generally, are irrelevant
Records, achievements, match-winning plays, etc are irrelevant
Goal kicking is irrelevant

I'm wondering TC, the players you laud seem to be exclusively anglosaxon. Is skin colour what's relevant?

 

[lsz]

@Technical Coach
A quick, somewhat unrelated question..
With the increase of player movements (later and later in the year) do you think teams will become even more structured to accommodate new players in their "system"? In a similar vein to NFL

 

[Deleted member 24974]

Premiership winner is how you rate players???
So Vic Mauro is a far better player than Nathan Hindmarsh??
That's the best yet.
1 thing to have an opinion on what players are better than others & why, but to measure player status by winning a premiership is a joke, there are 16 other players that may have contributed a little also.....

Vic Mauro better

 

[manlyfan76]

So in another world people know how to not have the last world i hear.
Lol that this is still going. Cant wait for footy season.

 

[HoldenV8]

TC, I'm not sure where you think that Langer was more dominant in Origin than Thurston has been.

Langer played in 11 Origin series and won 6 with 3 Man of the Match awards, though after Lewis retired things dried up for Qld. Four of Langer's Origin wins came when Wally was still Origin King and NSW were pitiful at times (pitiful in 88 and 89 at least). From 1992-1994 he was pretty much owned by Ricky Stuart in Origin games, but it was his combination with other Broncos players that kept him in the Australian jumper.

Compare that to Thurston who has so far played in 11 Origin series, won 9 of them, has won 5 MoM awards and is Origin's all time top point scorer from either state.

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves on that one.

 

[midsteyne]

thurston is a future immortal for sure,he has done everything in the game,better than johns,debatable,without eagles bias Fulton was /is the best footballer ive seen,EVER

 

[Deleted member 24974]

TC, I'm not sure where you think that Langer was more dominant in Origin than Thurston has been.

Langer played in 11 Origin series and won 6 with 3 Man of the Match awards, though after Lewis retired things dried up for Qld. Four of Langer's Origin wins came when Wally was still Origin King and NSW were pitiful at times (pitiful in 88 and 89 at least). From 1992-1994 he was pretty much owned by Ricky Stuart in Origin games, but it was his combination with other Broncos players that kept him in the Australian jumper.

Compare that to Thurston who has so far played in 11 Origin series, won 9 of them, has won 5 MoM awards and is Origin's all time top point scorer from either state.

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves on that one.

Origin is staged for channel 9 rating. Only results that matter are premierships which turdston is sadly lacking in.

 

[HoldenV8]

Agreed that Langer has it over Thurston where GF wins are concerned.

 

[Technical Coach]

@Technical Coach
A quick, somewhat unrelated question..
With the increase of player movements (later and later in the year) do you think teams will become even more structured to accommodate new players in their "system"? In a similar vein to NFL

I don't think teams will become more structured to accommodate new players, teams over the last 10-15 years have become more structured due to professionalism and analysis, the best structured teams more often than not win more consistently.

The simplistic game structure of league naturally does not offer a huge variety of structure variation more carbon copies of each other with tweaks and improvements that distinguish one club from the next.(the more professional a game becomes or even a business the more structures are copied and fine tuned offering less variation)

 

[Technical Coach]

TC, I'm not sure where you think that Langer was more dominant in Origin than Thurston has been.

Langer played in 11 Origin series and won 6 with 3 Man of the Match awards, though after Lewis retired things dried up for Qld. Four of Langer's Origin wins came when Wally was still Origin King and NSW were pitiful at times (pitiful in 88 and 89 at least). From 1992-1994 he was pretty much owned by Ricky Stuart in Origin games, but it was his combination with other Broncos players that kept him in the Australian jumper.

Compare that to Thurston who has so far played in 11 Origin series, won 9 of them, has won 5 MoM awards and is Origin's all time top point scorer from either state.

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves on that one.

Thurston has benefited from a weak disinterested NSW side and playing alongside the class of all those Melb Players so talking about stats alone is not enough, you have to put the performances in context.

How often did Thurston make the big play, the greatness of the Qld side allowed more than one person to break the shackles but just because Thurston was the half or 5/8 he is overly rewarded with "must be due to Thurstons influence"

I'm not rating Langer above Ricky i was more a fan of Ricky Stuart who changed the game in the skillset area.

I only mentioned Langer in the context of putting on the big plays when it mattered at a time when Origin squads were more even and the max amount of years of dominance per side was 2-3yrs.

Take it this way i would prefer to watch a Langer Origin highlights video compared to Thurston, which is not me saying a highlights video determines the better player overall just the individual brilliance great players tend to have is more evident in Langer.

 

[Technical Coach]

Got it.

Stats are irrelevant.
Teammate and expert opinions are irrelevant.
Dally Ms, and awards generally, are irrelevant
Records, achievements, match-winning plays, etc are irrelevant
Goal kicking is irrelevant

I'm wondering TC, the players you laud seem to be exclusively anglosaxon. Is skin colour what's relevant?

They are irrelevant to me and relevant to you, you are once again stating the obvious, my analysis comes from my own KPI's that i feel make a great player in terms of skillset, structure and bringing out the best in other players.(in terms of what works to create a strong successful club)

What in the hell are you on about bringing up the race card, that is a pathetic analysis. Just because Thurston is the token Aboriginal(in your eyes) in the very limited group of players we have discussed has lead you to this conclusion, seriously grow up.

 

[Rex]

They are irrelevant to me and relevant to you, you are once again stating the obvious, my analysis comes from my own KPI's that i feel make a great player in terms of skillset, structure and bringing out the best in other players.(in terms of what works to create a strong successful club)

What in the hell are you on about bringing up the race card, that is a pathetic analysis. Just because Thurston is the token Aboriginal in the very limited group of players we have discussed in this thread has lead you to that conclusion, seriously grow up.

I pointed to the strong white caucasian pattern in your "great player" group. All of them in fact. Causal or coincidental is up for you to conclude.

 

[Technical Coach]

I pointed to the strong white caucasian pattern in your "great player" group. All of them in fact. Causal or coincidental is up for you to conclude.

It's not even a pattern it is a small group of recent examples who i rate above Thurston.

You want it to be a pattern is more to the point and passive aggressively implying your point of view without stating it.

 

[Rex]

It's not even a pattern it is a small group of recent examples who i rate above Thurston.

You want it to be a pattern is more to the point and passive aggressively implying your point of view without stating it.

That's the thing about patterns isn't it? No matter how large the sample it never proves any theory.

Newton's laws seemed infallible based on ridiculously large sample sizes. But fallible they are.

 

[Technical Coach]

That's the thing about patterns isn't it? No matter how large the sample it never proves any theory.

Newton's laws seemed infallible based on ridiculously large sample sizes. But fallible they are.

So why bring the so called "pattern" up if you feel patterns in general never "proves any theory"

Large patterns prove enough in my eyes in many areas of life and business to make better informed, more efficient calculated decisions.

Your pattern and consistent style of replies proves to me that we would not get along, i think i have enough of a sample size just within this one thread to come to that conclusion don't you think?